Ivan
Pastor
Excellent question.
Dr. Peter Enns suspended from WTS
- Thread starter raekwon
- Start date
- Status
Excellent question.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
Probably because over time there tends to be little enforcement and the envelope keeps getting pushed further and further. Prof. X taught y so why can't I teach z since it is perfectly in line with it, and why should we be bound to these 17th century primitive documents anyway? Then typically semper reformanda is appealed to and an argument is made that strict subscription hasn't ever been the majority view and they will name a whole host of worthies from the past who weren't strict subscriptionists. As Dr. R.S. Clark pointed out in a recent blog, Charles Hodge didn't favor requiring strict subscription because he thought doing so would cause the Presbyterian Church to splinter into a number of smaller and more irrelevant denominations, which is what happened in the 1930's anyway. But at least people back then were somewhat more honest about what they were doing and amended the standards in 1903. I see no such call for confessional revision from those out of accord with the standards now.
If I'm not mistaken, around the time of the Shepherd controversy in the OPC some spoke of a "hermeneutic of trust" where for a long time a lot was accepted and men were assumed to be orthodox because, after all, they came out of WTS.
Ivan
Pastor
That's why Dr. Mohler made the Abstract of Principles a meaningful document again. There was quite a fuss when he first gave it teeth, but he was able to use it to identify the professors who needed to find employment elsewhere.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Studying biblical theology is like drinking beer: awesome. It is a heady drink. But both can be overdone. I have been there. I used to be a "moderate" in the baptist church. NT Wright was way too conservative for me. I laughed at his fundamentalism. He believed in silly things like a single Isaianic authorship.
But when you read heavy amounts of biblical theology (and Andy's comment about Vos fearing to go such and such is correct) you start, or at one time I did, to get annoyed with what you perceive to be artificial constraints on the text. This hits some people differently than others.
sastark
Puritan Board Graduate
I do not think this is accurate. Biblical theology is simply a theological discipline. Overdoing it would be like "overdoing systematic theology" or "overdoing exegesis". The problem is not with the discipline itself, it is with the presuppositions and the philosophy and (to be honest) the agendas with which people do it. Consider the radical difference between the "timid Vos" who emphatically defends supernatural divine revelation beginning with the life of God against all forms of criticism on the one hand, and works like Enns'. They are radically dissimilar.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
But is this not what the hyper preterists and the hyper-calvinists do? They just attempt to go where the evidence leads.
CT
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Ivan
Pastor
I wonder what would happen if I wore that t-shirt when I'm preaching.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Probably. I was merely making an empirical observation from my own limited experience.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
I wonder what would happen if I wore that t-shirt when I'm preaching.
Well if you want to be relevant...
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
It's also probably because it's now the middle of the semester and they don't want to leave the students in the lurch half way through.
By the way, Bill, you're looking younger in each new avatar photo!
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
I got a WTS graduate (a pastor) upset once when I said I was not a product of a "theological cemetery", but there is much truth to it. Is there a sound seminary these days? MARS? Reformed Baptist Seminary? (apart from the baptistic stuff -- sorry credos!) Any that can be recommended?
So much apostatizing begins over issues of Scripture, both OT and NT. And this seems -- to me, with my peculiar point of view -- to be intrinsic to Critical and Eclectic Text assumptions (I would have to include Majority Text too, to some extent, I'm afraid), where what we have is a provisional Scripture dependent on ongoing studies and research. Pandora's Box has been opened in this discipline and there is no getting what came out back in. The "best minds" in Evangelical (and Reformed) scholarship are taken with the notion of progress in determining the text of Scripture. Within this paradigm anything is fair game.
Does the future of P & R churches depend on graduates from seminaries? Theological education used to be a great blessing; now it is increasingly becoming a bane. And we are locked into drawing our fish from these pools, which are more and more polluted with poisons.
I remember when the Lord and the apostles picked unlearned men (for the most part) and trained them.
So much apostatizing begins over issues of Scripture, both OT and NT. And this seems -- to me, with my peculiar point of view -- to be intrinsic to Critical and Eclectic Text assumptions (I would have to include Majority Text too, to some extent, I'm afraid), where what we have is a provisional Scripture dependent on ongoing studies and research. Pandora's Box has been opened in this discipline and there is no getting what came out back in. The "best minds" in Evangelical (and Reformed) scholarship are taken with the notion of progress in determining the text of Scripture. Within this paradigm anything is fair game.
Does the future of P & R churches depend on graduates from seminaries? Theological education used to be a great blessing; now it is increasingly becoming a bane. And we are locked into drawing our fish from these pools, which are more and more polluted with poisons.
I remember when the Lord and the apostles picked unlearned men (for the most part) and trained them.
Blueridge Believer
Puritan Board Professor
Amen brother Steve.
Act 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.
I'm not against seminary training. There is a risk in swinging the pendulum too much to either side. Seminaries are human run organizations, and like most organizations, often stray from the path after a period of time. Unfortunately the men who leave these seminaries man pulpits that teach others. Even when/if the school reforms the damage is already done in the local church. This is another reason for confessional subscription.
I have always wondered what it would be like if a young man was called to preach and then came under the mentorship and guidance of his pastor and denomination. Certainly there would be a requirement for languages, exegesis and much study. But imagine the value of watching ministry take place from men who were engaged in it. There are many stories of men who have gone to seminary but not the ministry. They never knew the call of God on their life or found out, in school or after, that ministry was not something they wanted to do. Perhaps they had a crisis of faith because of an issue such as a provisional approach to scripture. Entering into an apprenticeship along side a minister of the gospel would expose the ministerial candidate to the realities of ministry.
I am just sharing a thought and by no means am I impugning seminaries in general. I may be out to lunch with this idea but it's one that I've often entertained.
I have always wondered what it would be like if a young man was called to preach and then came under the mentorship and guidance of his pastor and denomination. Certainly there would be a requirement for languages, exegesis and much study. But imagine the value of watching ministry take place from men who were engaged in it. There are many stories of men who have gone to seminary but not the ministry. They never knew the call of God on their life or found out, in school or after, that ministry was not something they wanted to do. Perhaps they had a crisis of faith because of an issue such as a provisional approach to scripture. Entering into an apprenticeship along side a minister of the gospel would expose the ministerial candidate to the realities of ministry.
I am just sharing a thought and by no means am I impugning seminaries in general. I may be out to lunch with this idea but it's one that I've often entertained.
Ivan
Pastor
I wonder what would happen if I wore that t-shirt when I'm preaching.
Well if you want to be relevant...
I think I'll stick with my suit and tie.
Ivan
Pastor
I'm certainly not against seminary training either (or Bible college). When I was in seminary we had a class called "field education". For one semester we worked in a church with the pastor (or associates). That was a good effort, but not enough, In my humble opinion. Students were encouraged to be involved in their local churches while in seminary. That's good too but certainly not the same as having a mentor. Students were encouraged to take ministry positions while in seminary. I think that's fine too, however with 5,000 students vying for positions it made it tough to find these church positions. I got involved in a position at the seminary, which became essential a full-time position, while attending semiary full-time. That didn't leave a lot of time for local church activities other than attending services.
However, I had the opportunity to have a wonderful mentor before I went to seminary. I was a member of Calvary Baptist Church in Edwardsville, Illinois while going to Southern Illinois University in the same town in 1974. The church had just called a young pastor by the name of Roger Ellsworth. Roger had been preaching since he was twelve years old (maybe younger) and had started his pastoral ministry at the age of sixteen. Now I don't know when Roger came to believe the Doctrines of Grace but he was a firm believer (which caused him some problems during his ministry at Calvary).
While I was at Calvary I came to believe that God wanted me to enter the pastoral ministry. I made that belief public (my wife was not happy at the time!) and was taken under the wing of Roger for about three years before I went to seminary. I was essentially the assistant pastor to Roger. I taught Sunday School, lead the children's church, the bus ministry, wrote articles for the church's newletter, worked with Roger in pastoral visitation, preached at Calvary in Roger's absence and supply preached in many churches in Southern Illinois. I remember that at one point we had a group that met at Roger's home on a Friday to study more deeply the Doctrines of Grace. That started with James Packer's Knowing God. I taught some of those evenings before a roaring fire and hot mugs of coffee in the living room of the Ellsworths.
I was involved in every aspect of ministry with Roger. One of the things I enjoyed the most was visiting bookstores with Roger. That was an education in itself. I learned what good books were and the discussion about them was enriching and edifying. I heard Roger preach three times a week and teach a couple times a week. Believe me, it was a education all within itself.
I tell people all the time that I learned more about the pastoral ministry in the three years I was with Roger than I ever learned in three years at Southwestern Seminary. That's the truth. It's interesting that during my time with Roger at Calvary there where members of the church that thought it best that I changed churches, basically to get away from Roger's teaching. I really didn't understand why at the time. At one time I had the opportunity to take a paid position within our local association which involved moving. I know we didn't move more than about 20 minutes from Calvary but the members of the church said it would be a good time for me to move my membership. Of course, I didn't and I'm glad I stayed under Roger's teaching.
A5pointer
Puritan Board Sophomore
These are thw words of a recent graduate:
Yes, I was able to look through the thread. Some seem to have been waiting for this "spring cleaning" at WTS. But I'm just not of the same mindset. Enns and Green were my favorite professors (OT dept). I had Pete as my Intro to OT prof. and I remember dinstinctly the day he introduced himself to me in the men's room by saying, "Hey I'm Pete." Real down to earth guy, played baseball, really smart. His teaching style was that of a man wrestling with the text with real honesty. He never claimed to have the answers, but he presented us with lots of questions to think about.
I'm really disturbed by WTS's decision.
Yes, I was able to look through the thread. Some seem to have been waiting for this "spring cleaning" at WTS. But I'm just not of the same mindset. Enns and Green were my favorite professors (OT dept). I had Pete as my Intro to OT prof. and I remember dinstinctly the day he introduced himself to me in the men's room by saying, "Hey I'm Pete." Real down to earth guy, played baseball, really smart. His teaching style was that of a man wrestling with the text with real honesty. He never claimed to have the answers, but he presented us with lots of questions to think about.
I'm really disturbed by WTS's decision.
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
Steve, are you really laying the whole problem at the feet of critical text advocates? There are a myriad of issues here, ranging from the fragmentation of the theological disciplines (which I think is much more fundamental, with each discipline viewing every other discipline with great suspicion), to just plain pride/ego, to faulty views of Scripture (this is really a distinct issue from the TR/CT issue). I highly doubt that acceptance of the CT can be blamed for this problem.
Ivan,
I had a similar experience. My "mentor" was Pastor John Schmucker, previously of the Oakwood Baptist Church in Kearny, New Jersey and now the pastor of Paramus Bible Church in Paramus, New Jersey. John would not agree with Roger on the doctrines of grace but he has the heart of a pastor. When I separated from the Air Force in 1983 I spent a few years at John's side doing many of the things (except for preaching) that you did with Roger. What I learned from this dear man aides me today.
Our anecdotal experiences aside I wonder whether a formal mentorship program could be developed, especially in Baptist churches. It worth discussion. I'm not going to get into it now because I will be hijacking this thread. Perhaps I will start a separate thread on this topic.
Blessings.
Gryphonette
Moderator
Seminary must be the only institution of higher learning....
If the professor doesn't know the answers, what's the point of him teaching?
Doesn't living in a perpetual sea of unanswered questions pretty much describe what Paul referred to in his second letter to Timothy as "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth"?
...where the students are happy to have those paid to teach them say they don't have any solid information for them, which is surely what not "claim[ing] to have the answers" boils down to.
If the professor doesn't know the answers, what's the point of him teaching?
Doesn't living in a perpetual sea of unanswered questions pretty much describe what Paul referred to in his second letter to Timothy as "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth"?
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Steve, as can be adduced from many of my own posts, I resonate with your concern about the future of seminary education. However, with Lane, I would not frame the issue as narrowly as one of TR/CT. It seems to me that the larger issue relates to modernist (the postmodernist is even worse here!) presuppositions when approaching the Bible. The attitude that animates the critical method leads to the objectification of scripture and the exaltation of the critical examiner. Given the pervasiveness of human hubris, any method that leads the reader to confuse his role with that of ruler will inevitably lead to problems.
Reformed theology, more than other varieties of Protestantism, has depended upon an "educated clergy." We are "stuck" with the unintended consequences of that dependence, including drift away from orthodoxy. Other than SBTS, name a seminary that has been around for more than a few decades that was able to retain its original theological convictions without the struggle reported at WTS.
My alma mater, Fuller, didn't take more than two decades to begin retreating from inerrancy. Now, the place is a hothouse for NPP, McLaren/Jones/Pagitt notions, ridicule of traditional theological views in a number of areas, and general latitudinarianism.
If my thesis that intellectual hubris will continually exert a pull away from orthodoxy can be sustained, something must be counterposed to prevent that drift. My provisional theory (and part of the reason I am hanging out with you TR folks these days) is that confessionalism honestly embraced and diligently applied functions as a check on my autonomous reason. The case of WTS demonstrates that such a corrective only works when the trustees, administration, faculty, and constituency take seriously the vigilance required.
What do you folks think?
Last edited:
R. Scott Clark
Puritan Board Senior
Steve,
When those untrained men can raise people from the dead, speak natural foreign languages without learning them, shake off serpents, survive stoning, beatings, drownings, be transported by the Spirit from place to place, and even pronounce a death sentence.
Until then seminaries are still a good idea.
Yes there are solid confessional seminaries. I can think of one or two.
rsc
When those untrained men can raise people from the dead, speak natural foreign languages without learning them, shake off serpents, survive stoning, beatings, drownings, be transported by the Spirit from place to place, and even pronounce a death sentence.
Until then seminaries are still a good idea.
Yes there are solid confessional seminaries. I can think of one or two.
rsc
I have very little experience in these areas, but apparently even those with great experience can't stop the "seminary slide" from happening, so I have one thought: Does it have anything to do with the fact that secular universities are still sort of a farming system when it comes to theological professors? That is, if you want to be a professor in a confessionally Reformed seminary, more often than not you have to get your finishing touch and coup de grace at a Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, etc.
I'm not claiming guilt by association, nor am I going off in an anti-intellectual direction. Just wondering if that might have something to do with it. We act as if pride is somehow less of a temptation than lust. And yet all of us men recognize the temptation present with the computer, regenerate status notwithstanding, and take status to avoid it. However, we don't hesitate to put men in the schools of Babylon for their M.A., followed by the instruction of Egypt for their Ph. D., before they go back and teach the children of Judah.
Ideally it would be great to know all of the wisdom of the world so as to combat it, but as long as there is an almost universal trend for seminaries to at least tip towards liberalism within a matter of decades, I wonder whether it is a good idea to make men go through the current system. When you read their books, and are forced to gain tenure and respect by publishing in "non-conservative" theological or historical journals, with all the tongue-holding and what not that goes along with it, how can we expect these men to not come out smelling a little fishy?
I might be completely off, but that's the thought I'm having.
A5pointer
Puritan Board Sophomore
This is interesting to me. Best I can tell this man's methods have not led him to conclusions that stray from theological tenants of the faith. However in this thread it seems some see him in that light or even worse in the light of a non-believing critical scholar. Is my observation right? I am not saying there should not be concern but it seems to be too broad brushed by association.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Excellent points JD, I have often wondered the same thing. One of my Professors at RPTS, Dr. Richard Gamble, received his Ph.D from the University of Basel in Switzerland and his M.A. from Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (from which I wish I could be delivered) and often tells us that he had many opportunities and temptations to "temper" his papers and arguments so that he could keep his grades up and "make friends". He said it was a great struggle and caused many sleepless nights that while it made him stronger in his faith, caused him much emotional harm.
BTW where is Riverview in Charleston? I grew up in Charleston and am curious (went to Overbrook Elementary).
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Don't confuse the niceness of the man with the badness of the teaching. I'd bet that, at the personal level, Arius was a swell guy, too.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
SEAGOON
Puritan Board Freshman
Hi Bruce,
No one would argue that Enns wasn't a nice guy, or very bright and sophisticated, or that the student body didn't like him immensely. All of these are very true. Unfortunately they were also true of men like Charles Erdman, Professor of Practical Theology at Princeton. He had a legion of admirers in the student body, was praised for his irenic spirit and was viewed as the man who could carry the seminary forward in the new century - a man unafraid of new ideas and cutting edge scholarship and certainly not an out and out liberal. Machen by comparison was socially awkward and somewhat stuffy, he was characterized by Erdman as. "temperamentally defective, bitter and harsh in his judgments of others and implacable to those who [did] not agree with him." It was Erdman's camp that won the day at Princeton and paved the way for the departure of Machen and his fellow uncool, "old fashioned" malcontents. It was Erdman, a much more up-to-date, popular, and thoroughly moderate man who paved the way for the neo-orthodox takeover at Princeton and destroyed, brick by brick, the legacy of Princeton.
Today it is the cool, moderate, post-modernists at WTS who are dismantling the legacy of Westminster. Instead of answers, all students are getting these days are "questions" because of course meta-narratives are bad and pretending we know the answers is arrogant. In true postmodern fashion, instead of the destination being important, its the "journey" that we want to appreciate. We all have to become the theological "tourists" that Wells spoke of in Above all Earthly Powers rather than Pilgrims. Never knowing always questioning, and talking about "my truth" rather than "THE truth" because "THE truth" would be an oppressive meta-narrative that would stifle the endless quest we are supposed to be on, always seeking, never finding.
You may have enjoyed this experience of denying that we can ever know "THE answers" but for a lot of evangelical kids showing up at seminary, it was the gateway to disillusionment and sometimes even apostasy. As I wrote elsewhere:
And yes, at the end of the day many a student's faith that the bible was literally God's Theopneustos Word, was shaken. There was also considerable damage done via a profound cynicism about the Reformed Confessions and denominations and extensive contact with non-Conservative writings like those of Neusner and Gundry. Part of the problem was that the kids coming to seminary by and large only had a vague grasp of orthodoxy themselves. Their faith was a simple faith, and instead of having that faith built up via exposure to the authors of the Old Paths, they were immediately confronted with a huge variety of different positions including the work of skeptics. I had one prof tell me he viewed it as his job to shake the dogmatic conclusions instilled in students by catechizing and so on. I pointed out that most of my classmates didn't even know the Shorter Catechism. ... what do you think would happen if you simultaneously trained up your kids using liberal, conservative, orthodox, Jewish, Catholic, and neo-orthodox materials? At best, they'd have a confused and uncertain faith, and at worst end up denying that the truth could ever really be known.
As for me, I want a Seminary that teaches us how to definitively, finally, and perfectly answer the great question "what must I do to be saved?" rather than teaching us to rhetorically ask "what is truth?" (John 18:38)
No one would argue that Enns wasn't a nice guy, or very bright and sophisticated, or that the student body didn't like him immensely. All of these are very true. Unfortunately they were also true of men like Charles Erdman, Professor of Practical Theology at Princeton. He had a legion of admirers in the student body, was praised for his irenic spirit and was viewed as the man who could carry the seminary forward in the new century - a man unafraid of new ideas and cutting edge scholarship and certainly not an out and out liberal. Machen by comparison was socially awkward and somewhat stuffy, he was characterized by Erdman as. "temperamentally defective, bitter and harsh in his judgments of others and implacable to those who [did] not agree with him." It was Erdman's camp that won the day at Princeton and paved the way for the departure of Machen and his fellow uncool, "old fashioned" malcontents. It was Erdman, a much more up-to-date, popular, and thoroughly moderate man who paved the way for the neo-orthodox takeover at Princeton and destroyed, brick by brick, the legacy of Princeton.
Today it is the cool, moderate, post-modernists at WTS who are dismantling the legacy of Westminster. Instead of answers, all students are getting these days are "questions" because of course meta-narratives are bad and pretending we know the answers is arrogant. In true postmodern fashion, instead of the destination being important, its the "journey" that we want to appreciate. We all have to become the theological "tourists" that Wells spoke of in Above all Earthly Powers rather than Pilgrims. Never knowing always questioning, and talking about "my truth" rather than "THE truth" because "THE truth" would be an oppressive meta-narrative that would stifle the endless quest we are supposed to be on, always seeking, never finding.
You may have enjoyed this experience of denying that we can ever know "THE answers" but for a lot of evangelical kids showing up at seminary, it was the gateway to disillusionment and sometimes even apostasy. As I wrote elsewhere:
And yes, at the end of the day many a student's faith that the bible was literally God's Theopneustos Word, was shaken. There was also considerable damage done via a profound cynicism about the Reformed Confessions and denominations and extensive contact with non-Conservative writings like those of Neusner and Gundry. Part of the problem was that the kids coming to seminary by and large only had a vague grasp of orthodoxy themselves. Their faith was a simple faith, and instead of having that faith built up via exposure to the authors of the Old Paths, they were immediately confronted with a huge variety of different positions including the work of skeptics. I had one prof tell me he viewed it as his job to shake the dogmatic conclusions instilled in students by catechizing and so on. I pointed out that most of my classmates didn't even know the Shorter Catechism. ... what do you think would happen if you simultaneously trained up your kids using liberal, conservative, orthodox, Jewish, Catholic, and neo-orthodox materials? At best, they'd have a confused and uncertain faith, and at worst end up denying that the truth could ever really be known.
As for me, I want a Seminary that teaches us how to definitively, finally, and perfectly answer the great question "what must I do to be saved?" rather than teaching us to rhetorically ask "what is truth?" (John 18:38)
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
Rae et ales,
If I'm not mistaken, this sounds like Old Princeton's decline all over again; except they're doing something about it!
Here's a quote from Enns:
Enns wants to "contribute to a growing opinion that what is needed is to move beyond both sides by thinking of better ways to account for some of the data, while at the same time having a vibrant, positive view of Scripture as God's word"
This is the same paradox theology that Westminster has been pushing since Van Til's day. I want to say that the bible is "inspired" so that I sound orthodox, but I also want to say that it's a nice story that doesn't contain any actual rational propositions.
It's not a terrible surprise that he is saying these things. Irrationalism is the order of the day: Credo quia absurdum est.
Cheers,
Adam
- Status
Similar threads
